WASHINGTON — Sen Mark Udall said Friday that assertions by the Obama administration that domestic spying on Americans is a critical tool in protecting the nation does “not hold up under close scrutiny” and he remains unconvinced that the secret Patriot Act’s collection of phone records and emails provides “valuable” intelligence.

Udall, in a joint statement with Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden[1], said, “as far as we can see, all of the useful information that it has provided appears to have also been available through other collection methods that do not violate the privacy of law-abiding Americans in the way that the Patriot Act collection does.”

“We hope that President Obama will probe the basis for these assertions as we have.”

Both men serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

President Barack Obama said Friday that broad surveillance on everything from phone records to emails to social media and cloud storage facilities on millions of Americans is legally justified under the Patriot Act.

Obama said “every member of Congress” had been briefed on the programs.

“These are programs that have been authorized by broad bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006,” he said. “Your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we’re doing.”

A handful of other senators on the intelligence committee stand by the programs, details of which were revealed in media reports Wednesday and Thursday, saying they save lives.

Udall and Wyden called for the administration to come clean on the programs, “now that the fact of bulk collection has been declassified.”

“The American people must be given the opportunity to evaluate the facts about this program and its broad scope for themselves, so that this debate can begin in earnest,” Udall and Wyden said.

Obama said Friday he welcomed debate on the balance between protecting Americans against terrorists and civil liberties.

“I welcome this debate,” he said, in a press briefing in California. “I think it’s healthy for our democracy. I think it’s a sign of maturity, because probably five years ago, six years ago, we might not have been having this debate.”